Your starting XI against Russia

[mrniaboc]

The reality is Clarke is a professional football manager with decades of experience at the highest levels of the game. I'd eager he's put some serious thought into the best formation for his team. Even more than us sad acts on here! 

[Malcolm]

Marshall

odonnel. Cooper mulgrew robertson

      Mctominay. Mcgregor

forest.   McGinn.    Burke

              Naismith

[Texas Pete]

15 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Marshall

odonnel. Cooper mulgrew robertson

      Mctominay. Mcgregor

forest.   McGinn.    Burke

              Naismith

Is this an attempt at humour or a typo?

[runningtings]

I think Chripper is actually a she for information, and also they are clearly on the wind up

[BucksburnDandy]

Marshall; SOD, Cooper, Mulgrew, Robertson; Armstrong, McTominay, McLean; Forrest, Naismith, Fraser.

 

Fully aware Armstrong hasn't played much but we are an infinitely better team with him than without him. McLean earns his start after his games in June. Don't trust McBurnie enough to play up front.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, mrniaboc said:

Despite actually seriously considering your stance on this and almost being convinced at points, and despite really really not wanting to reopen this whole debate, I am completed to say that you really have to not attribute causation to correlation. Saying we qualified because of the formation is really hard to defend. We qualified because of many different factors, you even mention them later in your post. This isn't '96, it's not the same squad and it's not the same manager. It's not even the same game to a point! 

You have to play to your strengths, and we have a manager who knows how to make an average team hard to beat with a back four, and a bunch of good players in attacking positions who are used to fitting into a formation with a back four. To ask that manager and those players to adapt to an entirely new formation and new positions in a 4-day training camp and then execute it successfully in a competitive international match is absolute suicide. 

Your defence for this decision is not as strong as you think. It's tantamount to suggesting we call up Del Amitri and ask them to write us a song. Correlation does not imply causation. 

Am I saying that we qualified for 96 and 98 solely because of the formation? Of course not. I've never once said that. I mentioned the team spirit, the bond between the players as well as the meticulous attention to detail. Would that set of players back in the 90s have done so well playing with a four? According to Craig Brown, it's a big fat no.

We have to play to our strengths? We don't have strengths. We just don't. The only thing our manager can do is form a club spirit, be attentive to details and pack the middle of the park with players... And then say a little prayer.

In the past 20 years we've had far better players like we do now: Barry Ferguson, Scott Brown, James McFadden, Alan Hutton, Darren Fletcher, etc. And yet they failed using the exact same template that we're using now. And yes, with inferior players, fans are expecting better results? That. Is. Insane.

I just find it completely bizarre that people would rather stick to type, a type that's been a monumental failure, rather that try something new.

I wouldn't be opposed to Del Amitri playing a wee jungle to inspire the players. 

1 hour ago, mrniaboc said:

Haha I know, but he's not always spouting nonsense. Sometimes just a bit reductionist and radical without considering the reality of the situation. 

"Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Clyde1998]

For me:

Marshall

SOD - Cooper - Mulgrew - Robertson

Forrest - McGregor - Christie - McTominay - Fraser

McBurnie

[PASTA Mick]

5 minutes ago, Clyde1998 said:

For me:

Marshall

SOD - Cooper - Mulgrew - Robertson

Forrest - McGregor - Christie - McTominay - Fraser

McBurnie

That's what I'd go with. 

[todd]

48 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

 

"Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt that this is chripper 😄

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, mrniaboc said:

The reality is Clarke is a professional football manager with decades of experience at the highest levels of the game. I'd eager he's put some serious thought into the best formation for his team. Even more than us sad acts on here! 

You have a PhD in astrophysics, right? I assume that you have a job in that field?

Isn't it in your paygrade to search for other celestial bodies and to analyse the physical nature of stars and other heavenly bodies?

Where would the world be without fellow astronomers? We'd still think that the world was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and we were the only planet in existence, etc.

Your job is to explore, to see beyond the stars and to generally look outside the box. What do you do is something fails in astrophysics? Do you do the same thing or do you do things differently?

It would appear that the Scotland fans, if they looked at the sky, would think that there's nothing beyond the stars.

[McFaddensLeftBoot]

Marshall

O'Donnell - Cooper - Mulgrew- Robertson

McTominay - McGinn

Fraser - McGregor - Forrest

Naismith

[mrniaboc]

1 hour ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

You have a PhD in astrophysics, right? I assume that you have a job in that field?

Isn't it in your paygrade to search for other celestial bodies and to analyse the physical nature of stars and other heavenly bodies?

Where would the world be without fellow astronomers? We'd still think that the world was flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and we were the only planet in existence, etc.

Your job is to explore, to see beyond the stars and to generally look outside the box. What do you do is something fails in astrophysics? Do you do the same thing or do you do things differently?

It would appear that the Scotland fans, if they looked at the sky, would think that there's nothing beyond the stars.

Haha I am indeed, and I'm all for thinking outside the box and experimenting. In fact, I have made a living from it. But what we also do is try and consider all variables that may be causing a phenomenon and not just get transfixed on one that we like in the face of all evidence against it. Learn from the mistakes of Arthur Eddington and Fred Hoyle. 

I get what you're saying. Why not mix things up a bit? Try something new! Pack the back and middle of the park. It makes sense, until you consider the multiple other pieces of information that suggest that's a bad idea with the current manager and squad. 

[mrniaboc]

2 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Am I saying that we qualified for 96 and 98 solely because of the formation? Of course not. I've never once said that. I mentioned the team spirit, the bond between the players as well as the meticulous attention to detail. Would that set of players back in the 90s have done so well playing with a four? According to Craig Brown, it's a big fat no.

We have to play to our strengths? We don't have strengths. We just don't. The only thing our manager can do is form a club spirit, be attentive to details and pack the middle of the park with players... And then say a little prayer.

In the past 20 years we've had far better players like we do now: Barry Ferguson, Scott Brown, James McFadden, Alan Hutton, Darren Fletcher, etc. And yet they failed using the exact same template that we're using now. And yes, with inferior players, fans are expecting better results? That. Is. Insane.

I just find it completely bizarre that people would rather stick to type, a type that's been a monumental failure, rather that try something new.

I wouldn't be opposed to Del Amitri playing a wee jungle to inspire the players. 

"Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.

You're comparing yourself to Luther? That renegade copper is always getting himself and those around him into serious danger due to his flagrant disregard for the conventional way of doing things! 

[The_Dark_Knight]

38 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

not just get transfixed on one that we like in the face of all evidence against it. Learn from the mistakes of Arthur Eddington and Fred Hoyle. 

What evidence do we have against a 3-5-2? One solitary match against Israel? I'd actually love to see the evidence that using 3-5-2 is such a scatterbrained idea.

I have the previous 19 years of evidence that we simply cannot succeed with four at the back. 

38 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I get what you're saying. Why not mix things up a bit? Try something new! Pack the back and middle of the park. It makes sense, until you consider the multiple other pieces of information that suggest that's a bad idea with the current manager and squad. 

What gets me is so many people appear NOT to get what I'm saying, which is worrying. It's like most people here think that it's against the law of physics and all that is holy to deviate from four at the back.

Do people actually know that we aren't contractually bound to play with a four at the back? Do people believe that if we play with a three it'll anger the gods? 

35 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

You're comparing yourself to Luther? That renegade copper is always getting himself and those around him into serious danger due to his flagrant disregard for the conventional way of doing things! 

Hey!! He's a genius and he's misunderstood!!! 

You know it, I know it and Ralph Waldo Emerson knew it!

Edited September 5, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[killiefaetheferry]

6 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

What evidence do we have against a 3-5-2? One solitary match against Israel? I'd actually love to see the evidence that using 3-5-2 is such a scatterbrained idea.

I have the previous 19 years of evidence that we simply cannot succeed with four at the back. 

What gets me is so many people appear NOT to get what I'm saying, which is worrying. It's like most people here think that it's against the law of physics and all that is holy to deviate from four at the back.

Do people actually know that we aren't contractually bound to play with a four at the back? Do people believe that if we play with a three it'll anger the gods? 

Hey!! He's a genius and he's misunderstood!!! 

You know it, I know it and Ralph Waldo Emerson knew it!

Big Ralph knew?

[Squirrelhumper]

There is zero chance SC is playing a back 3, it's pointless even discussing it.

[The_Dark_Knight]

14 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

There is zero chance SC is playing a back 3, it's pointless even discussing it.

Less than zero.

That isn't the point, though. Why shouldn't it be discussed if it could bridge the gap?

It would appear that the majority don't want to discuss it, not because it won't happen, but because playing anything other than a four at the back is seen as an abomination, and anyone who even suggests it is a witch and should be burned at the stake.

Like potential players being called up, formations and systems should be debated.

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 hour ago, killiefaetheferry said:

Big Ralph knew?

About Luther? He certainly did.

[Squirrelhumper]

28 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

Less than zero.

That isn't the point, though. Why shouldn't it be discussed if it could bridge the gap?

It would appear that the majority don't want to discuss it, not because it won't happen, but because playing anything other than a four at the back is seen as an abomination, and anyone who even suggests it is a witch and should be burned at the stake.

Like potential players being called up, formations and systems should be debated.

Would it bridge the gap? You seem to think it would, I would say it's putting players into unfamiliar positions and playing 3 centre halves when we are struggling to get 2 half decent ones.

We've a midfield that's the strongest part of our team but you want to move our world class left back and put him into midfield for some reason which will mean one the players in our strongest area (centre mid) will be sat on the bench.

It's not that folk don't want to discuss it, it's just that it's a daft idea and for that reason will never happen.

[AndyDD]

Formation is horses for courses, really. 

All variations of team shape have their pros and cons, obviously. Back 4 does not cure all our defensive woes, that much has been obvious. Back 3, likewise, is not some shangri-La that fits all teams, all squads, all players, all circumstances. 

Robertson looked a bit unsure of the position when playing it, albeit one or two times, under McLeish. Granted you could argue that over time he and the other players would adapt, but as mrniaboc says, that is not something they have maple time to work on. This is especially prescient when you look at the defensive options and how they have changed since Clarkes first squad. This will the the third different defensive personnel in as many games. The centre half pairing is a new one. Had Clarke gone back three against Cyprus and Belgium, he would now be unable to play the same back 3 this time. Indeed, Robertson would have only played it once as well, missing as he did the belgium game through injury. 

Both first choice full backs, both back up fullbacks and all four centre halves are used to the back four set up. I think all our winger options are routinely deployed with standard fullbacks on the end of a four at the back supporting them, too. 

Obviously anyone decrying back three as a formation simply on the back of Isreal away, or even the, what, 3 times McLeish tried it, are being ridiculous. It is not without merit. But the idea that we qualified because of back 3 is just as silly. We played two up front then anawl, should we be doing that tomorrow night? The lethal combo of Mcburnie and Phillips? Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. 

 

[The_Dark_Knight]

1 minute ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Would it bridge the gap? You seem to think it would, I would say it's putting players into unfamiliar positions and playing 3 centre halves when we are struggling to get 2 half decent ones.

We've a midfield that's the strongest part of our team but you want to move our world class left-back and put him into midfield for some reason which will mean one the players in our strongest area (centre mid) will be sat on the bench.

It's not that folk don't want to discuss it, it's just that it's a daft idea and for that reason will never happen.

I don't know whether or not it would bridge the gap, apparently, everyone assumes that it wouldn't. I would like to find out.

In any industry, if you're weak in a position you hire more people to do that particular job. Playing with less central defenders is asking for trouble. Same with playing with one striker. It's fashionable, so we do it... And what a roaring success that's been.

We don't have a top anchorman. And yes, I'd love to see if Robertson or Tierney could fill that gap. Don't think Germany fans or Austrian fans are moaning about Kimmich or Alaba playing as anchormen. So yes, playing either Robertson and Tierney would free up McTominay and McGinn to play further up in midfield.

It's not a daft idea. Sticking with a formula that's been a massive failure for the past 19 years is a daft idea. Playing with two anchormen is a daft idea and playing with one striker is a daft idea.

I have us down for three defeats in our next three matches, without a goal being scored. That's how confident I am with regards to our system.

[AndyDD]

15 hours ago, bazmidd said:

Surprised to not see McLean in more starting line ups, he was arguably our best player the last two qualifiers. Hasn't started for Norwich since the opening day of the season though tbf. Harsh to leave him out but McGregor is a fantastic Midfield player. McGinn started season well but just hasn't done it for Scotland recently and Christie is on fire and can make things happen. I would probably go with... 

                            Marshall

O'Donnell  Cooper    Mulgrew   Robertson

                McTominay   McGregor

Forrest                Christie                  Fraser

                           McBurnie

 

 

 

I really liked McLean in the last two games, but aye it's his lack of gametime that makes him miss out for me. It's a shame because in Belgium I thought the Mclean Mctominay Mcgregor combo worked quite well at times. 

[The_Dark_Knight]

17 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

Formation is horses for courses, really. 

All variations of team shape have their pros and cons, obviously. Back 4 does not cure all our defensive woes, that much has been obvious. Back 3, likewise, is not some shangri-La that fits all teams, all squads, all players, all circumstances. 

Robertson looked a bit unsure of the position when playing it, albeit one or two times, under McLeish. Granted you could argue that over time he and the other players would adapt, but as mrniaboc says, that is not something they have maple time to work on. This is especially prescient when you look at the defensive options and how they have changed since Clarkes first squad. This will the the third different defensive personnel in as many games. The centre half pairing is a new one. Had Clarke gone back three against Cyprus and Belgium, he would now be unable to play the same back 3 this time. Indeed, Robertson would have only played it once as well, missing as he did the belgium game through injury. 

Both first choice full backs, both back up fullbacks and all four centre halves are used to the back four set up. I think all our winger options are routinely deployed with standard fullbacks on the end of a four at the back supporting them, too. 

Obviously anyone decrying back three as a formation simply on the back of Isreal away, or even the, what, 3 times McLeish tried it, are being ridiculous. It is not without merit. But the idea that we qualified because of back 3 is just as silly. We played two up front then anawl, should we be doing that tomorrow night? The lethal combo of Mcburnie and Phillips? Post hoc ergo proptor hoc. 

 

Wow, a sensible and cogent rebuttal.

Wonders will never cease.

People say "Oh, but they don't play that formation for their clubs", and "players don't get enough time to train with Scotland to be able to adapt", etc. But back in the 90s only Elliot played in a back three at club level. Are people really saying that players were quicker learners in the 90s than they are now?

And yes, I would definitely play two up front. Go back to the days of Kenny Miller and ask him if he enjoyed running around like a headless chicken, chasing down every little scrap, or would he have preferred a strike partner to lighten the load. I think he would've chosen the latter. A little and large partnership of Fraser and McBurnie might be effective, with Fraser falling deep when we lose it.

Edited September 5, 2019 by The_Dark_Knight

[Tartan_McCole]

14 hours ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

This obsession Scotland fans have with a back four is ludicrous. The last ten qualifiers we've played with a back four we have failed. 

It's not really a Scotland exclusive obsession. It'll be the most stable defensive formation known. For that reason most people when selecting side will use it as their go to.

[AndyDD]

22 minutes ago, The_Dark_Knight said:

I don't know whether or not it would bridge the gap, apparently, everyone assumes that it wouldn't. I would like to find out.

In any industry, if you're weak in a position you hire more people to do that particular job. Playing with less central defenders is asking for trouble. Same with playing with one striker. It's fashionable, so we do it... And what a roaring success that's been.

We don't have a top anchorman. And yes, I'd love to see if Robertson or Tierney could fill that gap. Don't think Germany fans or Austrian fans are moaning about Kimmich or Alaba playing as anchormen. So yes, playing either Robertson and Tierney would free up McTominay and McGinn to play further up in midfield.

It's not a daft idea. Sticking with a formula that's been a massive failure for the past 19 years is a daft idea. Playing with two anchormen is a daft idea and playing with one striker is a daft idea.

I have us down for three defeats in our next three matches, without a goal being scored. That's how confident I am with regards to our system.

Okay, so you would like to find out. So set the parameters of this experiment. How many games would you like this to be tried? The rest of the campaign? How do you judge if it has succeeded or not? What is the threshold for determining if the back 3 system has brought tangible improvement over the back four? Would you continue with the back 3 in the playoffs if we have failed in the games between now and then using it, or persist, insisting it might have not worked in the last 6 or so games but might just do it this time? 

Should we try it for just as ling as we have tried the back four, aka Vogts onwards, just to make sure the back 3 has had as fair a crack of the whip? 

Correlation does not equal causation. The idea that the system played in prior campaigns is the reason those campaigns ended in failure is absurd. As is the notion that we should stick to back four because it worked in those two games against the French under Smith and then McLeish. As is, whilst we're at it, your claim that anyone is saying back 3 should not be discussed. It is being discussed plenty right now. It's just that most don't want to try it, at least in this vanishingly small sample size. But you have made valid points earlier in this discussion regards getting a good mentality, team spirit, club sensibility, in the squad. The same squad that has, albeit briefly, tried a back 3 and hated it. The players seemed clearly uncomfortable, unsure and out of sorts in that set-up. I don't think the spirit would have been all that lifted if Clarke walked in to training day 1 and said 'right lads, back 3'. That's not to say it couldn't be much better delivered by a coach of Clarke's calibre. Of course it could. Who knows, when Tierney is fit he might well try it. That seemed to be the reason McLeish was giving it a go anyway, to try and play both him and Tierney. 

But in the current circumstances, with the current squad, on the back of the improved display playing clarke's usual formation in those last two games, I would rather he stuck with his particular method for shape, at least right now. It hasn't stopped him having sensational success recently, that's for sure. 

Oh, and, eh, how dare you discuss this abomination, you should be hung by the neck until dead, I saw goody The_Dark_Knight with the devil, yadda yadda yadda...